ArticleDigital health
Clinical concept annotation with contextual word embedding in active transfer learning environment.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aims to present an active learning approach that automatically extracts clinical concepts from unstructured data and classifies them into explicit categories such as Problem, Treatment, and Test while preserving high precision and recall and demonstrating the approach through experiments using i2b2 public datasets. Methods: Initially labeled data are acquired from a lexical-based approach in sufficient amounts to perform an active learning process. A contextual word embedding similarity approach is adopted using BERT base variant models such as ClinicalBERT, DistilBERT, and SCIBERT to automatically classify the unlabeled clinical concept into explicit categories. Additionally, deep learning and large language model (LLM) are trained on acquiring label data through active learning. Results: Using i2b2 datasets (426 clinical notes), the lexical-based method achieved precision, recall, and F1-scores of 76%, 70%, and 73%. SCIBERT excelled in active transfer learning, yielding precision of 70.84%, recall of 77.40%, F1-score of 73.97%, and accuracy of 69.30%, surpassing counterpart models. Among deep learning models, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained with embeddings (BERTBase, DistilBERT, SCIBERT, ClinicalBERT) achieved training accuracies of 92-95% and testing accuracies of 89-93%. These results were higher compared to other deep learning models. Additionally, we individually evaluated these LLMs; among them, ClinicalBERT achieved the highest performance, with a training accuracy of 98.4% and a testing accuracy of 96%, outperforming the others. Conclusions: The proposed methodology enhances clinical concept extraction by integrating active learning and models like SCIBERT and CNN. It improves annotation efficiency while maintaining high accuracy, showcasing potential for clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.